To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

★ Richard M. Nixon
Southern
California
Unwilling as Americans may be to look beyond their own doorsteps for the total impact of the forthcoming election, I think it is in their best interest to do so before they discover the;r front yards have grown Red. These "front yards” have, within the past generation, been extended as to include the so-called Free World. With this in mind, it may be easier for my readers to understand why I, a non-American, and consequently a non-voter, am motivated to the extent of becoming more excited about the election than the average voter, and presenting the reason for my choice of Richard M. Nixon for President.
We in the Free World standing alongside you in our fight for freedom feel deeply concerned about saving our civilizations and moving ahead in our struggle for a better tomorrow. Vice President Nixon, we believe, is the most qualified candidate to be the leader of the Free World in maintaining our solidarity of values and ideals and in spearheading our common effort for survival not by compromise, not by retreat, but through firmness and good faith in our free enterprise system. On ideological grounds, in other words. Mr. Nixon stands for what we stand, is dedicated to the principles we staunchly support—the freedom of the individual, faith in the free enterprise system and the freedom of opportunity.
In the Free World the trend is toward strengthening the individual freedoms we have accomplished by preserving the institutions, organizations, ideals and values that we do have, not weakening them by the collectivist, centralizing methods ad-% vocated by the Communist World. The fate of the Labour Party in England illustrates this trend whereas present Western World leaders such as Dr. Adenauer, President Eisenhower and Mr. MacMillan have become the symbols of freedom. These leaders stand for and believi In what Mr. Nixon does and they are united in their effort for peace and the moral victory of their common ideologies.
Freedom of opportunity is what we are fighting for and we are looking to the United States of America as haven for our hopes and expectations. We like to believe that we can
always look up to America as the prototype of our beliefs and to the President of the United States as the standard-bearer of the principles we have devoted our lives to. We like to believe that Americans themselves have faith in their system.
The recent drain of gold in the world market is a direct evidence of increasing uneasiness at the prospect of a new radical ideology coming into power. This loss of faith in the American dollar demonstrates that the Free World rejects the idea of seeing America embrace the very ideology we distrust, namely that of greater centralization and collectivization.
Vice President Nixon needs no introduction to us. We have known him since long ago. He is known to us as the strong leader and the champion of our philosophies. He is known to us as the ever-fighting leader for freedom in the world. He has proved that he understands cur common enemy, communism; that he is dedicated to our common ideology, the free enterprise system; and that he will work for our common hope, freedom for all.
We thoroughly support Vice President Nixon’s stand on stimulating and supporting private initiative and enterprise through govermental controls and we distrust any attempt to increase the role of central governments in cur affairs.
The other major candidate appears to advocate policies of compromise—a direct retreat from cur stand. We have, cf course, had little opportunity to see Mr. Nixon’s major opponent in action. In the stands he has taken and the evidence he has given in his presidential campaign, however. Senator Kennedy has shown us that he is more than just a consummate politician; he is willing to sacrifice and compromise .those very values and ideals we so heartily advocate.
Will the American people fully recognize the need to elect the man for his belief in the principles and ideals that made our Western civilization great? Will our Free World compatriots acknowledge that we are battling to strengthen our values and ideals and that Mr. Nixon's values and ideals are ours?
Chris Ivittides
DAILY
TROJAN
^ John F. Kennedy
The choice of a candidate is made for emotional reasons, due to political biases, on a whim, or, unfortunately, because of a religious prejudice The independent voter, if he exists, may use reason. It is to him that this editorial must be directed.
The candidates have disagreed by Inference as to which is the proper criterion for judgment in deciding one’s vote; the man or the party. Vice President Nixon has emphasized the former, Senator Kennedy the latter. In fact, it behooves the voter to look' at both.
The Party
The Democrats have attempted to get legislation to boost stricken areas of the economy and have a history of some success at this under Democratic Administrations. After eight years of the Eisenhower Administration, wages have decreased their rate of improvement, we have the slowest rate of industrial growth among the major industrial nations, and the USSR is fast gaining on us. Republican votes in Congress and the Presidential veto or threat of it have, in the past two years, killed a minimum wage bill, two depressed areas bills, a situs picketing bill and many more, while fiscal policy has not halted our economic decline and most economists now predict a recession after the first of the year. The recent “gold rush” in London reflects the weakneing of the dollar.
Republican opposition to new Ideas has extended to its refusal to favor aid to education in any meaningful sense, as well as to substitute an emasculated bill for aid to the aged which will, in fact, entail more expenditure from the public treasury. It was the Vice President's deciding vote which killed the former. Administration lack of imagination (and, apparently, enthusiasm) has also constrained it to an excruciatingly slow pace in the implementation of the civil rights legislation passed by a Democratic Congress. This has forced Southern Negroes, in despair of much government help, to take things into their own hands in such forms as the sit-down demonstrations. The President has never even endorsed the 1954 segregation decision! Ambassador Lodge’s obviously cynical (and as obviously unauthorized) pledge to put a Negro in the Cabinet does not enhance the Republican record in this area, as Negro leaders have pointed out.
Our national defense posture has suffered greatly under an Administration which has been myopic in its vision of the nation's needs and has allowed the Bureau of the Budget to regulate our expenditures for this purpose. Three of our most talented military men—Generals Gavin. Meda-ris and Taylor—have left-the Pentagon in disgust because of just this complaint.
Most important, in the field of foreign affairs, our serious loss of prestige, obvious despite Mr. Nixon's disclaimer, has contributed to a weakening of our security and that of our friends. This has been compounded by a series of executive
blunders in Cuba, on the U-2 incident, in our lack of attention to Africa and Latin America, in the poor quality of our representatives abroad and in our failure of leadership, especially for NATO. Most of the leading lights in the study of international relations (including Hans Morgenthau and Harold Lass-well) have endorsed just this view in an appeal for a stronger foreign policy (and a vote for Kennedy) printed in the New York Times.
The Man
We must not, however, neglect the Vice President’s demand that we consider the men. One way to judge a man is by the company he keeps. In contrast to the blue ribbon group of the country’s foremost experts on economics and political science that play a part in the formation of Kennedy’s policy, Mr. Nixon attracts such types as Barry Goldwater, who doesn't like the income tax, and Admiral Arthur Radford, who wants to fight China.
While name-dropping, one must mention the names of some of the majority of newspaper and radio pundits who endorse the Senator. These include Waiter Lippman, James Reston, C. L. Sulzberger, the editors of the New York Times, Harper’s and the Reporter, Max Lerner, Eric Sevareid (who says of Kennedy, “he is a stronger man, the kind of human creature who can make a fateful decision and, like Harry Truman, sleep soundly in his bed.”), Douglass Cater, Quincy Howe and Edward P. Morgan.
Perhaps, though the Kennedy campaigners may be reluctant to admit it, the most important and, ultimately, clinching argument for the election of Kennedy (outside of his own assurance and great ability, his familiarity with most aspects of American government, especially foreign affairs, and his personal magnetism and capacity for courageous leadership) is the argument against Richard M. Nixon.
The history of Nixon’s shocking campaigns of slander and character annihilation against Representatives Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas, his use of the McCarthy era for personal ends, his continuing use of innuendo and distortion of the facts and the lack of any discernible convictions of what is good for America in the fabric of his character make him highly suspect.
It may be. as Nixon's supporters claim, that there is a new Nixon. Maybe. But, with John Fischer of Harper’s, I am not willing to gamble the country on it. In the present world crisis we must have a man with very personal conviction of right and of good. We cannot save ourselves with a man whose opinion changes with the whims of the public mind, who follows, rather than leads. Because of this, as Max Ascoli so rightly says, “We have a chance with Kennedy, we are sunk with Nixon.”
Ha -vcy Waterman
(See “KENNEDY,” rage Two)
VOL. HI
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1960
No. 35
der Students Will Vote n Close Election Tomorrow
Top Editorials, Faculty Ideas Assist Voters
You makes your vote and you you choice.
That will be what thousands c USC voters do tomorrow when they go to the polls to help select the next President of the United States. To help the student voter better decide which man to vote for, today’s Daily Trojan has tried to bring the issues and the candidates face io face.
T w o student editorials—the | winning entries from the Daily Trojan editorial contest—appear on this page.
Top Editorials
The editorials were chosen by Dr. Carl Q. Christol, head of the political science department and representative of Scholars for Nixon, and Dr. Russell Caldwell, associate professor of history and general studies and long-time Democratic spokesman.
Journalism professor Frederic C. Coonradt has awarded priz?s o.' S10 each to Chris Kittides, Republican, and Harvey Waterman, Democrat, (see page 2), for their prize-winning editorials.
Another contributor to the fund. Phil Hutchis, from the University College Extension division at Woodbury, added some extra dollars to the editorial writer's winings.
Stimulates Interest
Professor Coonradt, who teaches the School of Journalism’s editorial class, thought up the idea to stimulate interest and thought in the campaign.
A total of 22 editorials were submitted for the contest, 10 for Vire President Nixon, and 12 for Senator Kennedy.
Besides the editorials, the USC “senior ¡students” give voters tio different' reasons for supporting Kennedy or Nixon (see page 3).
Dr. Frank Baxter, English professor and state chairman, Academics for Kennedy, tells why voters should pick the Democratic candidate. Dr. Christol backs up the winning editorial Jht picked with further arguments telling why the Republicans should run the country.
International relations director, Dr. Ross N. Berkes, advises both presidential candidates as to their responsibilities in world problems; Dr. Joseph D. Boskin places the election in its histori-c_l perspective; and speech instructor, Richard Ek, analyzes the effectiveness of the Great Debates, suggesting future lm- j provements in this area.
Student Registration
Favors Nixon-Lodge
An estimated 7,000 USC students will go to the polls tomorrow to pick the next President of the United States.
Out of this total number, a registered Republican population of more than 5,000. and a registered Democratic population of less than 2,000 are expected to cast their votes in the 1S60 national i
'Down to the Wire'
Professor Gives Ideas Against Proposition 15
By Jl'DITH REYNOLDS
It is widely believed that Proposition 15 on reapportionment was put on the ballot by certain political interests who wanted to draw attention away from the water issue, says a USC professor of political science.
“This is the commonly used ‘red herring’ political technique of placing a controversial measure on the ballot in order to confuse the voting public in its consideration of some other important issue,” Dr. Totton J. Anderson explains.
The question raised by Proposition 15 center around dividing the state's 40 senatorial districts ; evenly between the 45 northern counties and the 13 southern counties and upon establishing representation based upon geographical area rather than population distribution.
Those advocating Proposition 15 contend that the current Senate represents urban interests unfairly, Dr. Anderson explains. They believe this because 30 northern counties comprisin'g 6 per cent of the population have 14 senators, while the Bay j Area and 8 southern counties comprising 80 per cent of the population have only 13 of 40 senators, the professor says.
Since Assembly representation is already based upon population, those opposed to Proposi-
I tion 15 feel that making population the basis of representation ! in both houses would defeat the basic purpose of a bicameral legislature, the polticial scientist says.
“If is a south versus north and j an urban versus rural interests J problem,” Dr. Anderson continues. “The proposition is ill-con-ceived, because it doesn’t con-j sider the basic economic and social cleavages in the state. Furthermore, it never received the attention of experts in public hearings usually accorded to such important issues.
“I feel that Preposition 15 is merely scratching the surface cf the very complex and serious problem of state reapportionment.
“A reapportionment program should involve a study of electoral districts of both the Senate and the Assembly.
“The legislature, as it now functions, with Assembly representation based upon population and Senate representation based upon geographical areas, affects a type of compromise between rural and urban interests,” the professor relates.
Dr. Anderson, as a co-author of ‘Politics in the Western States,” has developed a brief analysis of reapportionment problems. The book will be published in late spring by the University of Utah Press.
electioin.
When the two Presidential candida.es spoke on campus at the Firs*-TIme Voter convocations, stude. t voters had a (' ance to hear the Republican and Democratic candidates voice their platforms in person.
Nixon's Policy
Vree President Nixon assured them that he h; d a domestic program which would produce more and cost less than any of his Democratic opponent’s pro posals.
He called Senator Kennedy's plans to sp-nd the taxpayer's money in programs for farmers, education and health programs which “would cost more than mine, but it isn’t his monev or my money he's spending, it's yours.”
Senator Kennedy told the students that Republican opposition te social security, medical c e for the aged, minimum wage I laws and housing legislation w?s typical of th party's general opposition to progressive legislation.
“If you believe that the party which has opposed such progressive legislation is equipped to I e a d a changing country, then Nixon is your man.-’ he said.
Progress and Kennedy
The Massachusetts senator urged the college student to call I for progress and to ask that the new adrr'^istration re-establish American prestige in the world.
“As 'standard-bearer for the Democratic party. I believe that if the United States is going to maintain its position as the leader in the free world it has to move again. We have to pick ourselves up and go forward.” he said.
Vice President Nixon pledged himself to do everything possible to “move America forward to win the battle for freedom.”
“I can not say that I am the man who can produce the greatness Am°ri< a needs. I do know the world. I do know know that America is going to r--*d an effort—militarily, spiritually. morally _nd economically —exceeding anything in our country’s history,” he said.
Senator Kennedy felt that the Vice President's views that our prestige in the world has never been higher and that of the Communists never were lower were distorted.
Whatever the reasoning, whoever is right. USC's “elder-’ student population will have a chance to - die their decisive opinions when ‘hey vote in tomorrow's election.
Bumpers Back GOP Nominee In Car Tally
If USC bumper stickers indicate the strength of a Presidential candidate. Richard Nixon can start moving his luggage into the White House.
A Daily Trojan parking lot poll shows that as far as bumper stickers go, the Republican nominee is the running favorite.
Few Stickers
But as far as bumper stickers go, there really aren't too many stuck bumpers, either among students or faculty. Only about 12 per cent of those in the commuter's club sport those luminescent red. green and oranse stickers which broadcast political partisanship.
Of that number, however. 60 per cent boost Nixon. A representative sampling of two student and two faculty parking lots revealed 36 Nixon-Lodge fans, 24 Kennedy-Johnson fans.
Faculty Support
The biggest kernel of Nixon support comes from the faculty. In one faculty parking lot the Vice President tallied up twi<^ as many bumper stickers as his Democratic rival. 18 to 9. In I another faculty parking lot. Nixon's victory was a narrower one, 11 to 8.
But among the students the bumper vote boiled down to a draw. In one lot only one Nixon sticker and no Kennedy stickers popped up. In another lot Kennedy held a slight edge, 7 to 6.
There was one stalwart for a minority party candidate — Alfred E. Neuman, running on the “Mad” ticket.
Asian Students Hit Press
Asian students on this campus voice one loud criticism of the Presidential race, and it's directed, net to the candidates, but to the press.
It could be summed up like this: “Newspapers you're not
playing fairly with • the candi- ! dates and you're being unfair to the voters.”
And so, while many campus foreign student observers applaud other aspects of the campaign as “democratic” they condemn the press as biased and “undemocratic.”
“If being democratic means fair coverage of the campaign by the press, then this campaign hasn't been democratic” said Luis Romulo Eugenio, a public relations major from the Philippines.
“It appeared to me that the ; Los Angeles Times was covering I th? Nixon trail just as Pravda ; would cover Nikita’s visit to the 1 U. N„” Eugenio added. “For democracy to exist. I believe in fairness to all and prejudice to- j ward none.”
A Korean student felt that the “freedom of the press” tradition has not really been in practice j during the last few months of; electioneering.
“As far as press reports go, the campaign has been undemocratic since—to our misfortune— most of the newspapers fail to present impartial reports,” noted one Indian student.
These non-American observers, however, have been watching both the Nixon and Kennedy campaign trains closely.
“Foreign students are the silent constituents of this election,” declared Daulat Masuda, a graduate cinema student from New Delhi, India.
“What happens here directly influences us because America is in a position of leadership whether or not she fulfills that, leadership with vigor,” Masuda said. “What kind of world we will be living in in the future will depend on America.”
Other foreign students voiced similar opinions. They didn’t agree, however, about the general "success” of the Great Debates.
Some felt that the debates deserved high ratings because they helped voters “know both candidates better.” Others held that the debates were useless and only obscured the issues.
During the four debates “neither of the candidates came out
I boldly and presented his viewpoints in a crystal-clear way,” said one disappointed Indian I student.
Of those students questioned j by the Daily Trojan, the ma-! jority would like to see Sen. John F. Kennedy as President.
Masuda said he would rather j see Kennedy in the White House ! because of the Senator’s leadership ability, his policies and his I party.
“Nixon appeals only to the emotions of people, always telling them what they want to hear, but Kennedy presents the issues,” Masuda said.
“Nixon says that the American President could only lie as great as the people, but in India we feel that the people as a mass are never great, they have to be led to greatness.
Kennedy, he feels, can “m<?et and face present problems wit.i a vision of the future.”
He condemned the Vice President for pointing to nations as being either with or against the United States.
"It is not important who is with America but that America is on freedom's side,” Masuda added.
Some of those questioned
doubted that American students were too interested in the election; others * felt that students were interested but doubted “very much if they are all familiar with the issues.”
One Indian student said he found it “very disappointing” that only a small percentage of the country's working class appeared to l>e interested in the election, but was heartened by what he felt to be “iiv-reased' student interest in the campaign.
Some students felt that there were a number of “superfluous” aspects surrounding the entire election.
“There is silly mud-slinging for trivial things and too much shouting about the election promises,” observed one student.
Another felt that the foreign policy platform of the Democratic Party and an “unrealistic” national economic stand of the Republican Party were bad features of the campaign.
“The parades, confetti, conventions and sideshows seem at first to be very superfluous,'’ said one foreign observer. “However, I realize that these are the special ingredients that make American democracy so alluring.”
Election Race: Expert Claims Anything Goes
Trying to pick the outcome of tomorrow's Presidential election is like predicting a flipped coin will land on its edge, says a USC political scientist.
Dr. William Buchanan, associate professor of political science, notes that with the electoral college system as it is anything could happen at the polls tomorrow.
“All the big states—with the big electoral votes—are hanging in the balance,” Dr. Buchanan reports.
Either Could Win
With this the case either candidate could possibly win by a landslide electoral vote and a small popular vote.
“In the regions where the popular vote, is very close to 50 percent, the electoral vote may go to the man with the majority or to the man with the minority,” Dr. Buchanan explains.
“It all depends on where the votes are,” he says.
In most areas across the United States no one is quite sure—even with all the polls -where the votes really are.
Nothing liK»ks “certain.”
One Sure
“The only thing that looks clearly one way or the other is South Dakota, which is Republican,” Dr. Buchanan continues.
The political scientist feels, however, that the race will be a close one. right down to the wire, because the candidates ar * evenly balanced.
“There will be a very heavy turnout because individuals who think the election will be close are more likely to vote wtrn they are confident that their vote can be crucial,” Dr. Buchanan explains.
>

★ Richard M. Nixon
Southern
California
Unwilling as Americans may be to look beyond their own doorsteps for the total impact of the forthcoming election, I think it is in their best interest to do so before they discover the;r front yards have grown Red. These "front yards” have, within the past generation, been extended as to include the so-called Free World. With this in mind, it may be easier for my readers to understand why I, a non-American, and consequently a non-voter, am motivated to the extent of becoming more excited about the election than the average voter, and presenting the reason for my choice of Richard M. Nixon for President.
We in the Free World standing alongside you in our fight for freedom feel deeply concerned about saving our civilizations and moving ahead in our struggle for a better tomorrow. Vice President Nixon, we believe, is the most qualified candidate to be the leader of the Free World in maintaining our solidarity of values and ideals and in spearheading our common effort for survival not by compromise, not by retreat, but through firmness and good faith in our free enterprise system. On ideological grounds, in other words. Mr. Nixon stands for what we stand, is dedicated to the principles we staunchly support—the freedom of the individual, faith in the free enterprise system and the freedom of opportunity.
In the Free World the trend is toward strengthening the individual freedoms we have accomplished by preserving the institutions, organizations, ideals and values that we do have, not weakening them by the collectivist, centralizing methods ad-% vocated by the Communist World. The fate of the Labour Party in England illustrates this trend whereas present Western World leaders such as Dr. Adenauer, President Eisenhower and Mr. MacMillan have become the symbols of freedom. These leaders stand for and believi In what Mr. Nixon does and they are united in their effort for peace and the moral victory of their common ideologies.
Freedom of opportunity is what we are fighting for and we are looking to the United States of America as haven for our hopes and expectations. We like to believe that we can
always look up to America as the prototype of our beliefs and to the President of the United States as the standard-bearer of the principles we have devoted our lives to. We like to believe that Americans themselves have faith in their system.
The recent drain of gold in the world market is a direct evidence of increasing uneasiness at the prospect of a new radical ideology coming into power. This loss of faith in the American dollar demonstrates that the Free World rejects the idea of seeing America embrace the very ideology we distrust, namely that of greater centralization and collectivization.
Vice President Nixon needs no introduction to us. We have known him since long ago. He is known to us as the strong leader and the champion of our philosophies. He is known to us as the ever-fighting leader for freedom in the world. He has proved that he understands cur common enemy, communism; that he is dedicated to our common ideology, the free enterprise system; and that he will work for our common hope, freedom for all.
We thoroughly support Vice President Nixon’s stand on stimulating and supporting private initiative and enterprise through govermental controls and we distrust any attempt to increase the role of central governments in cur affairs.
The other major candidate appears to advocate policies of compromise—a direct retreat from cur stand. We have, cf course, had little opportunity to see Mr. Nixon’s major opponent in action. In the stands he has taken and the evidence he has given in his presidential campaign, however. Senator Kennedy has shown us that he is more than just a consummate politician; he is willing to sacrifice and compromise .those very values and ideals we so heartily advocate.
Will the American people fully recognize the need to elect the man for his belief in the principles and ideals that made our Western civilization great? Will our Free World compatriots acknowledge that we are battling to strengthen our values and ideals and that Mr. Nixon's values and ideals are ours?
Chris Ivittides
DAILY
TROJAN
^ John F. Kennedy
The choice of a candidate is made for emotional reasons, due to political biases, on a whim, or, unfortunately, because of a religious prejudice The independent voter, if he exists, may use reason. It is to him that this editorial must be directed.
The candidates have disagreed by Inference as to which is the proper criterion for judgment in deciding one’s vote; the man or the party. Vice President Nixon has emphasized the former, Senator Kennedy the latter. In fact, it behooves the voter to look' at both.
The Party
The Democrats have attempted to get legislation to boost stricken areas of the economy and have a history of some success at this under Democratic Administrations. After eight years of the Eisenhower Administration, wages have decreased their rate of improvement, we have the slowest rate of industrial growth among the major industrial nations, and the USSR is fast gaining on us. Republican votes in Congress and the Presidential veto or threat of it have, in the past two years, killed a minimum wage bill, two depressed areas bills, a situs picketing bill and many more, while fiscal policy has not halted our economic decline and most economists now predict a recession after the first of the year. The recent “gold rush” in London reflects the weakneing of the dollar.
Republican opposition to new Ideas has extended to its refusal to favor aid to education in any meaningful sense, as well as to substitute an emasculated bill for aid to the aged which will, in fact, entail more expenditure from the public treasury. It was the Vice President's deciding vote which killed the former. Administration lack of imagination (and, apparently, enthusiasm) has also constrained it to an excruciatingly slow pace in the implementation of the civil rights legislation passed by a Democratic Congress. This has forced Southern Negroes, in despair of much government help, to take things into their own hands in such forms as the sit-down demonstrations. The President has never even endorsed the 1954 segregation decision! Ambassador Lodge’s obviously cynical (and as obviously unauthorized) pledge to put a Negro in the Cabinet does not enhance the Republican record in this area, as Negro leaders have pointed out.
Our national defense posture has suffered greatly under an Administration which has been myopic in its vision of the nation's needs and has allowed the Bureau of the Budget to regulate our expenditures for this purpose. Three of our most talented military men—Generals Gavin. Meda-ris and Taylor—have left-the Pentagon in disgust because of just this complaint.
Most important, in the field of foreign affairs, our serious loss of prestige, obvious despite Mr. Nixon's disclaimer, has contributed to a weakening of our security and that of our friends. This has been compounded by a series of executive
blunders in Cuba, on the U-2 incident, in our lack of attention to Africa and Latin America, in the poor quality of our representatives abroad and in our failure of leadership, especially for NATO. Most of the leading lights in the study of international relations (including Hans Morgenthau and Harold Lass-well) have endorsed just this view in an appeal for a stronger foreign policy (and a vote for Kennedy) printed in the New York Times.
The Man
We must not, however, neglect the Vice President’s demand that we consider the men. One way to judge a man is by the company he keeps. In contrast to the blue ribbon group of the country’s foremost experts on economics and political science that play a part in the formation of Kennedy’s policy, Mr. Nixon attracts such types as Barry Goldwater, who doesn't like the income tax, and Admiral Arthur Radford, who wants to fight China.
While name-dropping, one must mention the names of some of the majority of newspaper and radio pundits who endorse the Senator. These include Waiter Lippman, James Reston, C. L. Sulzberger, the editors of the New York Times, Harper’s and the Reporter, Max Lerner, Eric Sevareid (who says of Kennedy, “he is a stronger man, the kind of human creature who can make a fateful decision and, like Harry Truman, sleep soundly in his bed.”), Douglass Cater, Quincy Howe and Edward P. Morgan.
Perhaps, though the Kennedy campaigners may be reluctant to admit it, the most important and, ultimately, clinching argument for the election of Kennedy (outside of his own assurance and great ability, his familiarity with most aspects of American government, especially foreign affairs, and his personal magnetism and capacity for courageous leadership) is the argument against Richard M. Nixon.
The history of Nixon’s shocking campaigns of slander and character annihilation against Representatives Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas, his use of the McCarthy era for personal ends, his continuing use of innuendo and distortion of the facts and the lack of any discernible convictions of what is good for America in the fabric of his character make him highly suspect.
It may be. as Nixon's supporters claim, that there is a new Nixon. Maybe. But, with John Fischer of Harper’s, I am not willing to gamble the country on it. In the present world crisis we must have a man with very personal conviction of right and of good. We cannot save ourselves with a man whose opinion changes with the whims of the public mind, who follows, rather than leads. Because of this, as Max Ascoli so rightly says, “We have a chance with Kennedy, we are sunk with Nixon.”
Ha -vcy Waterman
(See “KENNEDY,” rage Two)
VOL. HI
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1960
No. 35
der Students Will Vote n Close Election Tomorrow
Top Editorials, Faculty Ideas Assist Voters
You makes your vote and you you choice.
That will be what thousands c USC voters do tomorrow when they go to the polls to help select the next President of the United States. To help the student voter better decide which man to vote for, today’s Daily Trojan has tried to bring the issues and the candidates face io face.
T w o student editorials—the | winning entries from the Daily Trojan editorial contest—appear on this page.
Top Editorials
The editorials were chosen by Dr. Carl Q. Christol, head of the political science department and representative of Scholars for Nixon, and Dr. Russell Caldwell, associate professor of history and general studies and long-time Democratic spokesman.
Journalism professor Frederic C. Coonradt has awarded priz?s o.' S10 each to Chris Kittides, Republican, and Harvey Waterman, Democrat, (see page 2), for their prize-winning editorials.
Another contributor to the fund. Phil Hutchis, from the University College Extension division at Woodbury, added some extra dollars to the editorial writer's winings.
Stimulates Interest
Professor Coonradt, who teaches the School of Journalism’s editorial class, thought up the idea to stimulate interest and thought in the campaign.
A total of 22 editorials were submitted for the contest, 10 for Vire President Nixon, and 12 for Senator Kennedy.
Besides the editorials, the USC “senior ¡students” give voters tio different' reasons for supporting Kennedy or Nixon (see page 3).
Dr. Frank Baxter, English professor and state chairman, Academics for Kennedy, tells why voters should pick the Democratic candidate. Dr. Christol backs up the winning editorial Jht picked with further arguments telling why the Republicans should run the country.
International relations director, Dr. Ross N. Berkes, advises both presidential candidates as to their responsibilities in world problems; Dr. Joseph D. Boskin places the election in its histori-c_l perspective; and speech instructor, Richard Ek, analyzes the effectiveness of the Great Debates, suggesting future lm- j provements in this area.
Student Registration
Favors Nixon-Lodge
An estimated 7,000 USC students will go to the polls tomorrow to pick the next President of the United States.
Out of this total number, a registered Republican population of more than 5,000. and a registered Democratic population of less than 2,000 are expected to cast their votes in the 1S60 national i
'Down to the Wire'
Professor Gives Ideas Against Proposition 15
By Jl'DITH REYNOLDS
It is widely believed that Proposition 15 on reapportionment was put on the ballot by certain political interests who wanted to draw attention away from the water issue, says a USC professor of political science.
“This is the commonly used ‘red herring’ political technique of placing a controversial measure on the ballot in order to confuse the voting public in its consideration of some other important issue,” Dr. Totton J. Anderson explains.
The question raised by Proposition 15 center around dividing the state's 40 senatorial districts ; evenly between the 45 northern counties and the 13 southern counties and upon establishing representation based upon geographical area rather than population distribution.
Those advocating Proposition 15 contend that the current Senate represents urban interests unfairly, Dr. Anderson explains. They believe this because 30 northern counties comprisin'g 6 per cent of the population have 14 senators, while the Bay j Area and 8 southern counties comprising 80 per cent of the population have only 13 of 40 senators, the professor says.
Since Assembly representation is already based upon population, those opposed to Proposi-
I tion 15 feel that making population the basis of representation ! in both houses would defeat the basic purpose of a bicameral legislature, the polticial scientist says.
“If is a south versus north and j an urban versus rural interests J problem,” Dr. Anderson continues. “The proposition is ill-con-ceived, because it doesn’t con-j sider the basic economic and social cleavages in the state. Furthermore, it never received the attention of experts in public hearings usually accorded to such important issues.
“I feel that Preposition 15 is merely scratching the surface cf the very complex and serious problem of state reapportionment.
“A reapportionment program should involve a study of electoral districts of both the Senate and the Assembly.
“The legislature, as it now functions, with Assembly representation based upon population and Senate representation based upon geographical areas, affects a type of compromise between rural and urban interests,” the professor relates.
Dr. Anderson, as a co-author of ‘Politics in the Western States,” has developed a brief analysis of reapportionment problems. The book will be published in late spring by the University of Utah Press.
electioin.
When the two Presidential candida.es spoke on campus at the Firs*-TIme Voter convocations, stude. t voters had a (' ance to hear the Republican and Democratic candidates voice their platforms in person.
Nixon's Policy
Vree President Nixon assured them that he h; d a domestic program which would produce more and cost less than any of his Democratic opponent’s pro posals.
He called Senator Kennedy's plans to sp-nd the taxpayer's money in programs for farmers, education and health programs which “would cost more than mine, but it isn’t his monev or my money he's spending, it's yours.”
Senator Kennedy told the students that Republican opposition te social security, medical c e for the aged, minimum wage I laws and housing legislation w?s typical of th party's general opposition to progressive legislation.
“If you believe that the party which has opposed such progressive legislation is equipped to I e a d a changing country, then Nixon is your man.-’ he said.
Progress and Kennedy
The Massachusetts senator urged the college student to call I for progress and to ask that the new adrr'^istration re-establish American prestige in the world.
“As 'standard-bearer for the Democratic party. I believe that if the United States is going to maintain its position as the leader in the free world it has to move again. We have to pick ourselves up and go forward.” he said.
Vice President Nixon pledged himself to do everything possible to “move America forward to win the battle for freedom.”
“I can not say that I am the man who can produce the greatness Am°ri< a needs. I do know the world. I do know know that America is going to r--*d an effort—militarily, spiritually. morally _nd economically —exceeding anything in our country’s history,” he said.
Senator Kennedy felt that the Vice President's views that our prestige in the world has never been higher and that of the Communists never were lower were distorted.
Whatever the reasoning, whoever is right. USC's “elder-’ student population will have a chance to - die their decisive opinions when ‘hey vote in tomorrow's election.
Bumpers Back GOP Nominee In Car Tally
If USC bumper stickers indicate the strength of a Presidential candidate. Richard Nixon can start moving his luggage into the White House.
A Daily Trojan parking lot poll shows that as far as bumper stickers go, the Republican nominee is the running favorite.
Few Stickers
But as far as bumper stickers go, there really aren't too many stuck bumpers, either among students or faculty. Only about 12 per cent of those in the commuter's club sport those luminescent red. green and oranse stickers which broadcast political partisanship.
Of that number, however. 60 per cent boost Nixon. A representative sampling of two student and two faculty parking lots revealed 36 Nixon-Lodge fans, 24 Kennedy-Johnson fans.
Faculty Support
The biggest kernel of Nixon support comes from the faculty. In one faculty parking lot the Vice President tallied up twie interested in the election, but was heartened by what he felt to be “iiv-reased' student interest in the campaign.
Some students felt that there were a number of “superfluous” aspects surrounding the entire election.
“There is silly mud-slinging for trivial things and too much shouting about the election promises,” observed one student.
Another felt that the foreign policy platform of the Democratic Party and an “unrealistic” national economic stand of the Republican Party were bad features of the campaign.
“The parades, confetti, conventions and sideshows seem at first to be very superfluous,'’ said one foreign observer. “However, I realize that these are the special ingredients that make American democracy so alluring.”
Election Race: Expert Claims Anything Goes
Trying to pick the outcome of tomorrow's Presidential election is like predicting a flipped coin will land on its edge, says a USC political scientist.
Dr. William Buchanan, associate professor of political science, notes that with the electoral college system as it is anything could happen at the polls tomorrow.
“All the big states—with the big electoral votes—are hanging in the balance,” Dr. Buchanan reports.
Either Could Win
With this the case either candidate could possibly win by a landslide electoral vote and a small popular vote.
“In the regions where the popular vote, is very close to 50 percent, the electoral vote may go to the man with the majority or to the man with the minority,” Dr. Buchanan explains.
“It all depends on where the votes are,” he says.
In most areas across the United States no one is quite sure—even with all the polls -where the votes really are.
Nothing liK»ks “certain.”
One Sure
“The only thing that looks clearly one way or the other is South Dakota, which is Republican,” Dr. Buchanan continues.
The political scientist feels, however, that the race will be a close one. right down to the wire, because the candidates ar * evenly balanced.
“There will be a very heavy turnout because individuals who think the election will be close are more likely to vote wtrn they are confident that their vote can be crucial,” Dr. Buchanan explains.
>